P2P lawyer accused of issuing ISP subpoenas without court approval

ISPs get subpoenas seeking identifying information for their subscribers on a …

A few weeks ago, a man headed home from work and found that his wife had already opened a letter from their ISP, Comcast. The letter said that the man's IP address had been fingered by Mick Haig Productions, a German film producer suing 670 people in a Dallas federal court. Mick Haig suspected our unnamed protagonist of sharing a pornographic film called Der Gute Onkel (The Good Uncle) and had gone to Comcast in order to unearth his identity. Awkward conversations between husband and wife no doubt ensued.

The man tried to find out exactly what was going on. He eventually got in touch with Paul Allen Levy at Public Citizen, a DC nonprofit that had been asked by the judge in the Mick Haig case to step in and stand up for the rights of the anonymous defendants.

The man "was really quite alarmed," Levy tells me, to be accused of downloading "this junk." Now he's "living in fear" of what might come next—and he denies even downloading the film in the first place.

But it wasn't the protestation of innocence that caught Levy's attention; it was the very fact that subpoenas in the case had already been mailed to Internet providers. The judge in the Mick Haig case had not yet allowed expedited discovery to proceed, Levy says, and had therefore never signed off on subpoenas. Yet Mick Haig's lawyer, the Denton, Texas-based Evan Stone, appeared to have sent them out anyway.

"He acted as if it didn't matter what the judge said," Levy says. He began calling around to the ISPs, who hadn't questioned the documents; indeed, at least one had begun to turn the names over to Stone.

Evan Stone

Levy was furious. He dashed off a tough letter (PDF) to Stone, accusing him of concealing from Comcast and others "the fact that Judge Godbey had never granted you permission to serve subpoenas in the case We are very disturbed by this information It is, as well, arguably a serious abuse of process that may be independently actionable."

Several days later, Stone withdrew the entire case with prejudice, meaning that it can't be brought again. His motion to dismiss took the unusual step of blaming the judge for putting Levy and a pair of EFF lawyers on the case in the first place:

The Court appointed attorneys ad litem for the Defense. Rather than choosing competent local counsel experienced in intellectual property law, the Court appointed a trio of attorneys renowned for defending Internet piracy and renowned for their general disregard for intellectual property law. Additionally, instead of instructing these attorneys to engage Plaintiff’s counsel in a discovery conference which would allow the case to move forward, the Court ordered attorneys for the Defense to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion, for which the Court has yet to make a ruling.

The response of the Defense was largely beyond the scope of the Discovery Motion at issue, raising defenses as absurd as the notion that a Defendant’s choice of what movie to illegally download from the Internet is “protected speech” under the First Amendment. Moreover, the Defense provided no alternatives for Plaintiff to cure the harm inflicted on it by Defendants.

Now, four months after the initial filing of this case, with little chance of discovery in sight, Plaintiff feels it has lost any meaningful opportunity to pursue justice in this matter. As such, Plaintiff has notified all relevant Internet service providers that this case is being dismissed and hereby notifies the Court of the same.

Not that dismissal will necessarily get Stone off the hook if he did abuse the legal process. Levy could ask for attorney fees, or request sanctions against Stone. "I'm inclined to make him answer our questions," Levy says, about just how these subpoenas were sent and whether Stone managed to collect settlement money from anyone.

I spoke with Stone at length by phone about his business, though he declined to address any of the specific allegations resulting from the Gute Onkel case.

To Levy, the case shows the importance of due process. Without it, lawyers are free to "terrify people," he says.

This falls squarely under the definition of racketeering, as used by the RICO act. That, among other interesting provisions, would potentially put him up for up to $25000 fine and 20y in jail *per case*, and enable any civil party harmed by the activities of this guy, to ask and collect treble damage.

In this case, it appears that abuse of process has earned its just desserts.

I must have missed the part where Stone was disbarred and sent to prison.

That's what I'd be looking for too. Trying to extort money from people is a crime, simply not being allowed to extort money anymore isn't exactly the kind of just punishment one would expect in this situation.

I'd also be highly questioning Comcast's ability to protect privacy. Did they bother to look into whether approval was given before they started handing out details and letters? No corporation should hand out any information until they have absolute, confirmed approval to do so.

Also, I really shouldn't have googled "Evan Stone" at work. Those were some nasty results.

In this case, it appears that abuse of process has earned its just desserts.

I must have missed the part where Stone was disbarred and sent to prison.

This...

ylandrin wrote:

This falls squarely under the definition of racketeering, as used by the RICO act. That, among other interesting provisions, would potentially put him up for up to $25000 fine and 20y in jail *per case*, and enable any civil party harmed by the activities of this guy, to ask and collect treble damage.

this...

Laffo wrote:

Hmm...there's a word for what happens to people who do things like this. Errr...uhhh...hmmmm....no...oh yes!

In this case, it appears that abuse of process has earned its just desserts.

I must have missed the part where Stone was disbarred and sent to prison.

That's what I'd be looking for too. Trying to extort money from people is a crime, simply not being allowed to extort money from the same victims anymore isn't exactly the kind of just punishment one would expect in this situation.

FTFY

Quote:

I'd also be highly questioning Comcast's ability to protect privacy. Did they bother to look into whether approval was given before they started handing out details and letters? No corporation should hand out any information until they have absolute, confirmed approval to do so.

I'm a little upset by that too, but hardly surprised. The telcos all bent over backwards for the NSA to wiretap us without warrants too, remember? They just don't give a shit about us.

I'm a little upset by that too, but hardly surprised. The telcos all bent over backwards for the NSA to wiretap us without warrants too, remember? They just don't give a shit about us.

And they shouldn't, given that you really have no other choice but to use the conveniently single telco available in your area, or... go without internet.Because it's much easier to pay attention to debates about wardrobe dysfunctions than about corporate legislation... who cares about tiny things like enforcing antitrust laws?

Edit: oh, I guess this reply would have fit on about 1/3 of the stories published by Ars these past few days... Is our telco/media industry really going on an all-out war of our freedoms, or is it just a bias of Ars reporting? Meethinks the former, but...

I'm a little upset by that too, but hardly surprised. The telcos all bent over backwards for the NSA to wiretap us without warrants too, remember? They just don't give a shit about us.

And they shouldn't, given that you really have no other choice but to use the conveniently single telco available in your area, or... go without internet.Because it's much easier to pay attention to debates about wardrobe dysfunctions than about corporate legislation... who cares about tiny things like enforcing antitrust laws?

And besides that, the prevailing political propaganda in the U.S. is pro-business and anti-regulation, so that if anyone decides to look up from the reality show for a moment to wonder about this sort of thing, they're told about all the scary socialist liberals who want the government to "take over" the internet.

The coat of arms of the East India Company is a trademark - I'd imagine it's registered, and as such may be protected in the USA via the WTO. I had a quick look at Wikipedia, and trademarks seems to be protected.

I'd also be highly questioning Comcast's ability to protect privacy. Did they bother to look into whether approval was given before they started handing out details and letters? No corporation should hand out any information until they have absolute, confirmed approval to do so.

As much as I hate to defend Comcast (I really hate them), they were as much a victim here as their subscribers. Subpoenas that aren't approved by the judge simply aren't supposed to be sent. It's normal for companies to assume they're legit because, well, there's some pretty harsh penalties for sending out fake ones. Since this has rather embarrassed Comcast, and I doubt they're happy about that, I wouldn't be surprised to see them seek to have this lawyer sanctioned, or even charged with a crime because of this. I seriously doubt his only worries are Levy the EFF any longer. This is also likely to royally piss of the judge, and that's never, ever a good idea. I really wouldn't be surprised if Stone does end up disbarred and in jail.

You know, if I was one of the people getting screwed over by lawyers like Stone, I would be sorely tempted to introduce him to a whole lot of vigilante justice.

Not to criticize your comment but I think things would have been fixed by now if enough people spoke up about it. I have been watching this on the sidelines for years. The situation has gone from an amusing curiosity to an outright abuse of people's rights.

What we need is a voice in the community. Denton is a very small town, and if the right people knew about this situation the tables could be turned on him in a very non-violent way.

Would you take a chance on losing your right to practice law if you knew that a higher authority was going to be called into action? This guy spent quite a bit of time going to law school and has a lot to lose if he cannot practice law.

In the article he mentions having 670 IP addresses, with a 45% settle rate of anywhere between $1,500 to $2,500.

At the lowest rate, that comes out to $452,250.00 in settlements alone. Even if he loses every case.

I'd like to take a thank Andrew Crossley and Thomas Dunlap for raising the copyright spamigation tactic to meme status. You guys have been the best thing for consumers since the RIAA. :eyeroll:

Actually, this situation makes me angry. How many people will have to lose out before someone speaks out? Look at the situation with Ms. Thomas and the RIAA. She will have to pay for downloading a few songs for the rest of her life.

I understand that what she did was wrong. After all, she lied to the court. But her punishment should fit the crime. The maximum fine for this should be about $250.00 or so. (And I'm tempted to type a much lower number).

Would you take a chance on losing your right to practice law if you knew that a higher authority was going to be called into action? This guy spent quite a bit of time going to law school and has a lot to lose if he cannot practice law.

He should have thought about the possible repercussions before he took it upon himself to issue court documents without court authority. IMO, he needs some serious punishment for this, and I'd go as far as saying he needs disbarred.

Would you take a chance on losing your right to practice law if you knew that a higher authority was going to be called into action? This guy spent quite a bit of time going to law school and has a lot to lose if he cannot practice law.

He should have thought about the possible repercussions before he took it upon himself to issue court documents without court authority. IMO, he needs some serious punishment for this, and I'd go as far as saying he needs disbarred.

I agree with you 100%. Now who do we contact to make this happen?

It's one thing to talk about it online, but without a stir caused by someone in the community it will not happen.

Would you take a chance on losing your right to practice law if you knew that a higher authority was going to be called into action? This guy spent quite a bit of time going to law school and has a lot to lose if he cannot practice law.

So? He took a chance at quick profit (illegally) and it backfired. Just because he spent a lot of effort (presumably) in becoming a lawyer doesn't mean he should have a carte blanche to do whatever he wants and not have to face the consequences of his action.

He should be forced to repay any money he gained from people he sent those letters too, after all don't people get released from jail if it turns out the cops didn't get a warrant first before searching something and getting evidence?

Seriously, I don't know how anyone can condone this kind of blatant blackmail, it's disgusting. He should be jailed and barred from practising law for life.

quote:"Rather than choosing competent local counsel experienced in intellectual property law, the Court appointed a trio of attorneys renowned for defending Internet piracy and renowned for their general disregard for intellectual property law"

why does that read to me as "instead of appointing lawyers that would unquestioningly agree with whatever I say cause they're my best buds, they hired people who actually give a sh!t about legal process"

You know what would be great? Someone in or near the Denton area could, say, set up a fake gay porn site, pose as a pornographer selling said fake porn, then try to solicit the esteemed Mr. Stone to bring a case. Said fake pornographer could then wear a wire and record a meeting with Stone, making it clear that he wants to get money from people and asking about ways in which he could avoid those pesky trials and skip straight to the juicy settlement cash. With any luck, Stone would blab enough about his unsavory practices to get himself into hot water, all captured on tape. Then in the final act, the "pornographer" could send one copy of the tape to the Texas bar association and another to the nearest federal prosecutor.

On top of paying back any money, lawsuits should be filed or something. Being accused of this stuff is very stressful, not only to the accused, but to their family as well. Trust me, it carries over into your work because you're constantly thinking about it. I would love to sue for emotional distress that it has caused me.